[asa] Question from Nick Matzke

Nick Matzke asked me to forward his question to the ASA group as this
group seems quite well positioned in answering his questions.

Pim

On Feb 26, 2007, at 5:41 PM, Nicholas J. Matzke wrote:
>
> Background to question:
>
> Hi ASA list -- I am working on a writeup of the history of
> creationism and ID. I don't so much need advice on the creationism/
> ID part, which I know plenty about -- I am looking for commentary
> on the background history. One broad question has me puzzled,
> concerning the terms "fundamentalist", "evangelical", "Neo-
> Evangelical", etc. in the context of the 20th-century history of
> American protestantism.
>
> Based on reading historians like Noll, Marsden, etc., one gets the
> following basic impression of the 20th century (I am horribly
> oversimplifying, of course) :
>
> 1. The broadly "evangelical" Protestantism, derived from the
> revivals of the early 1800s, was widespread and a dominant cultural
> force, e.g. most political leaders, colleges etc. were in this
> tradition.
>
> 2. Major strains and splits had existed at least since the fight
> over slavery, but in the 1910s-1920s "fundamentalism" exploded on
> the scene, which explicitly emphasized Biblical inerrancy. Apart
> from the fight over evolution in the public schools, fundamentalist/
> modernist battles ensued in many denominations, seminaries, etc.
> In general the modernists won, and the fundamentalists retreated
> from the cultural battles to form their own seminaries, colleges,
> media organs, etc. We can call the original, broader fundamentalism
> "early fundamentalism" and the later (1930s-on) fundamentalism
> "separatist fundamentalism."
>
> 3. In the 1940s-1950s, a group of conservative Bible-believers
> distanced themselves from this separatist fundamentalism, and
> started the "Neo-Evangelical" movement, which attempted to be a
> broader, more inclusive movement that engaged the culture
> politically. Notable features include the National Association of
> Evangelicals, Christianity Today, and Billy Graham.
>
> Now, Henry Morris and most of the traditional "creation science"
> advocates have (I think) usually been put pretty firmly in the
> "separatist fundamentalist" group. I have seen Morris, at least,
> write hostile things about the "Neo-Evangelicals".
>
> So, getting to my question: It is tempting to hypothesize that
> "intelligent design" is to Neo-Evangelicalism what "creation
> science" was to separatist fundamentalism. Is this wildly,
> horribly wrong, or is there some truth here? On the one hand, ID
> seems primarily to exist in the Neo-Evangelical sphere (it
> primarily gets attention in those publications, etc.). On the
> other hand, I get the sense that Neo-Evangelicals might just be all
> over the map on this, e.g. (1) many ASA people like Francis Collins
> would not have much sympathy for ID, while (2) on the other hand,
> Ted Haggard, the head of the NAE, seems to have been a convinced
> young-earth creationist.
>
> An alternative view might be that the old labels don't mean much
> any more, and that the relevant categorization of (broadly
> speaking) "evangelicals" these days is the Culture War. On the
> Culture Warrior side we have creation science AND ID proponents,
> all of them comrades in arms with the group of evangelicals
> fighting the battles over abortion, sex education, school prayer,
> etc. Perhaps people like Francis Schaeffer (viewed as a
> revolutionary by many Neo-Evangelicals, but who called himself a
> fundamentalist) can be seen as the intellectual founders of the
> Culture Warrior tradition. On the non-Culture-Warrior side we have
> the tradition represented by Billy Graham, Francis Collins, perhaps
> many ASAers, etc., which seems less hostile to "secular
> culture" (on evolution, church-state issues, stem cell research,
> etc.). Arching over this we have things Christianity Today and the
> NAE, where perhaps the Culture Warrior side has a good majority but
> not an exclusive voice.
>
> An advantage of the Culture War theme is that the conservative
> evangelical-conservative Catholic alliances make a lot of sense
> within it.
>
> So I would appreciate comments/critiques/scathing critiques of the
> above ideas, as well as references to scholarly work on this
> question, since I'm sure others have thought about it much more
> than me.
>
> Also, for those who feel that some/all of the above terms are
> useful, I would be interested on where you would place various
> theologians and institutions that are associated with the ID
> movement. Specifically:
>
> Norman Geisler
> Dallas Theological Seminary
> J.P. Moreland
> John Mark Reynolds
> Biola University
> Probe Ministries
> Ken Ham
> Answers in Genesis
> Chuck Colson
> Nancy Pearcey
> Christianity Today
> World Magazine
> Phillip Johnson
> Christian Research Journal
>
> ...and whomever/whatever else might seem relevant as datapoints.
> (My view: All of the above are clearly on the "Culture War" side,
> whatever else they may be. They would all be called
> "fundamentalist" on a 1920s definition (where basically
> fundamentalism = inerrancy). But once the Neo-Evangelicals start
> distinguishing themselves from the fundamentalists, it all becomes
> much less clear to me.)
>
> Thanks so much for whatever thoughts you have -- I am not planning
> on making this a major part of my writing about the history of
> creationism/ID -- really analyzing the Culture War would take (has
> taken already) many books -- but I would like to make a few
> generalizations about the evangelical context without screwing up
> too badly.
>
> Cheers,
> Nick
>
> PS: Full disclosure -- yes, I am the anti-ID activist who works at
> NCSE, and yes I am convinced that ID is pretty much worthless and
> is clearly creationism relabeled. But I do understand there is
> substantial diversity within creationism and within evangelicalism
> and fundamentalism. In any event, at the moment I am more
> interested in the above than in the specific ID=creationism
> discussion.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 28 23:43:10 2007